Article in today's Grauniad about the effects of higher oil prices

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/28/travelandtransport.oil

"Airlines and train operators said their planes were taking off and
landing on time, despite the slowdown. "Though this adjustment in
speed makes our fuel burn more economically, it does not jeopardise
flight punctuality," said a BMI spokesman."

"We did do it in response to rising fuel costs but for us it's a
win-win situation between being economical and environment concerns,"
said a Maersk spokesman.

So why only now? Did it never occur to these people that they were
wasting fuel, even at the old prices?

Erm, I've just realised that since I tanked up last week at the
equivalent of 98p a litre I've started to think seriously before
turning on the air conditioning. So I'm an idiot, too. But I'm not
running a business.

-- 
Jo

I have observed that some people are still driving the four by four (what
should we call it up here?  A Hawcoat Tractor?) round the corner to the
newsagent.

Rosie (who walks nearly everywhere)

In message , Jo Lonergan 
 writes
>Article in today's Grauniad about the effects of higher oil prices

There was, in Wrecsam this afternoon, what I presume was a fuel-price 
protest - lots of lorries and artic tractor units trundling along with 
much honking of horns.

It struck me as rather odd that people would, in effect, say "The price 
of fuel is intolerable.  Let's go out and use a whole lot more of it."
-- 
Jenny
"I always like to have the morning well-aired before I get up."
(Beau Brummel, 1778-1840)

Jenny M Benson  writes:
>In message , Jo Lonergan 
> writes
>>Article in today's Grauniad about the effects of higher oil prices
>
>There was, in Wrecsam this afternoon, what I presume was a fuel-price 
>protest - lots of lorries and artic tractor units trundling along with 
>much honking of horns.
>
>It struck me as rather odd that people would, in effect, say "The price 
>of fuel is intolerable.  Let's go out and use a whole lot more of it."

we went to kent to visit my mother, the w/e just past.  on friday, i
was hurrying to get there (70 mi/h whenever possible), and we had a
bad time of the m25 segment we use.

on sunday on the way back, there seemed no need to hurry, so i drove
at 60 mi/h when possible, and we were also fortunate in not being
blocked on the m25.

when i got home, i noticed that i had consumed half the amount of
petrol on sunday that i had consumed on friday.  (tank full at start
of each journey: measurement by visual estimation only.)
-- 
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge

On 1 Jul 2008 21:18:08 GMT, rf10@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) wrote:

>we went to kent to visit my mother, the w/e just past.  on friday, i
>was hurrying to get there (70 mi/h whenever possible), and we had a
>bad time of the m25 segment we use.
>
>on sunday on the way back, there seemed no need to hurry, so i drove
>at 60 mi/h when possible, and we were also fortunate in not being
>blocked on the m25.
>
>when i got home, i noticed that i had consumed half the amount of
>petrol on sunday that i had consumed on friday.  (tank full at start
>of each journey: measurement by visual estimation only.)

When really going for it on the motorway I've sometimes had the impression I
could see the fuel level indicator sinking before my eyes. Which is another
reason, if I needed one, to give up driving to London: it would cost at least
CHF 360 return in fuel (and that's at Swiss fuel prices, which are still
substantially lower) plus the not inconsiderable fare for the Chunnel. My latest
return rail fair was CHF 375. And you can read a book.

-- 
Jo

On 2 Jul, 20:46, Jo Lonergan  wrote:

> When really going for it on the motorway I've sometimes had the impression I
> could see the fuel level indicator sinking before my eyes.

I have found that dropping in between lorries in "the slow lane" ,
sitting there doing between 55 and 60 mph has really reduced my petrol
consumption  and only increased my 35 min commute journey by 5 minutes
at the most. Road noise is reduced and I have very few manouvers to
concentrate on and, if I'm listening to Radio 4, it is time well
spent.

It does seem odd that it is seen as a good thing that one achieves a
high speed or a short journey time - especially by those who claim to
like driving cars. If you enjoy driving why do you want to get it over
with quickly?

Except for emergency vehicles anyone having to speed is just showing
their failure at bad planning.

In message 
, Bob 
E  writes
>On 2 Jul, 20:46, Jo Lonergan  wrote:
>
>> When really going for it on the motorway I've sometimes had the impression I
>> could see the fuel level indicator sinking before my eyes.
>
>I have found that dropping in between lorries in "the slow lane" ,
>sitting there doing between 55 and 60 mph has really reduced my petrol
>consumption  and only increased my 35 min commute journey by 5 minutes

(I wonder if you're slipstreaming too?)

>at the most. Road noise is reduced and I have very few manouvers to
>concentrate on and, if I'm listening to Radio 4, it is time well
>spent.
>
>It does seem odd that it is seen as a good thing that one achieves a
>high speed or a short journey time - especially by those who claim to
>like driving cars. If you enjoy driving why do you want to get it over
>with quickly?

Indeed!
>
>Except for emergency vehicles anyone having to speed is just showing
>their failure at bad planning.

Oh no, I'm showing my success at bad planning. Bad planning is something 
I'm very good at ...
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Buying books would be a good thing if one could also buy the time to read them
in: but as a rule the purchase of books is mistaken for the appropriation of
their contents. -Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher (1788-1860)

Bob E wrote:
> On 2 Jul, 20:46, Jo Lonergan  wrote:
> 
>> When really going for it on the motorway I've sometimes had the impression I
>> could see the fuel level indicator sinking before my eyes.
> 
> I have found that dropping in between lorries in "the slow lane" ,
> sitting there doing between 55 and 60 mph has really reduced my petrol
> consumption  and only increased my 35 min commute journey by 5 minutes
> at the most. Road noise is reduced and I have very few manouvers to
> concentrate on and, if I'm listening to Radio 4, it is time well
> spent.

For a journey that short I'd probably agree with you, but my 90 minute 
commute to Essex took almost 30 minutes longer on the days when I was 
short of petrol and without credit card so crawled at lorry speeds.
> 
> It does seem odd that it is seen as a good thing that one achieves a
> high speed or a short journey time - especially by those who claim to
> like driving cars. If you enjoy driving why do you want to get it over
> with quickly?

Because the pleasure of driving for me is doing the best (FSVO best) job 
you can in the conditions. If I am stuck in traffic or driving slowly to 
save fuel I lose concentration, I know that sounds self-serving but it's 
true.
> 
> Except for emergency vehicles anyone having to speed is just showing
> their failure at bad planning.

I don't think that's quite what you meant is it ?  :)

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:16:28 -0700 (PDT), Bob E
 wrote:

>On 2 Jul, 20:46, Jo Lonergan  wrote:
>
>> When really going for it on the motorway I've sometimes had the impression I
>> could see the fuel level indicator sinking before my eyes.
>
>I have found that dropping in between lorries in "the slow lane" ,
>sitting there doing between 55 and 60 mph has really reduced my petrol
>consumption  and only increased my 35 min commute journey by 5 minutes
>at the most. Road noise is reduced and I have very few manouvers to
>concentrate on and, if I'm listening to Radio 4, it is time well
>spent.
>
>It does seem odd that it is seen as a good thing that one achieves a
>high speed or a short journey time - especially by those who claim to
>like driving cars. If you enjoy driving why do you want to get it over
>with quickly?
>
>Except for emergency vehicles anyone having to speed is just showing
>their failure at bad planning.
When we had the 3 day week and petrol shortage I don't think we got as
far as rationing. I don't recall it all clearly but wasn't there a
55mph speed limit set for some time?  That was supposed to be the
optimum speed for using least fuel.  Don't you use more at lower
speeds too?  

And the Institute of Advanced Motorist course aim to make your driving
not only safe but also sensible, which includes driving smoothly and
predicting conditions, which saves fuel.  We were told to slow down
using the engine not brakes as far as possible, to lose speed when
approaching a slowdown rather than brake.  I find it annoys the people
behind though.  They prefer you to drive up to faster speeds and then
brake closer to the roundabout or whatever.

In message , badriya 
 writes
[]
>When we had the 3 day week and petrol shortage I don't think we got as
>far as rationing. I don't recall it all clearly but wasn't there a
>55mph speed limit set for some time?  That was supposed to be the

Yes, 50 or 55.

>optimum speed for using least fuel.  Don't you use more at lower
>speeds too?

Hmm. Depends on the gearing. Air resistance goes as (I think) the fourth 
power of speed, so the faster you go, the more you waste pushing the air 
out of the way. However, below a certain speed, you have to change down, 
thus using more explosions per yard, or the engine will stall, or at 
least labour.

but I think the main cost of lower speeds is not the low speed in 
itself, but the fact that you're more likely to have to indulge in 
stop-start (or at least accelerate/brake) motion, which is by far the 
worst for energy saving (unless you're driving something with 
regenerative braking _and_ that can usefully store _and_ re-use the 
energy thus recovered).
>
>And the Institute of Advanced Motorist course aim to make your driving
>not only safe but also sensible, which includes driving smoothly and
>predicting conditions, which saves fuel.  We were told to slow down
>using the engine not brakes as far as possible, to lose speed when
>approaching a slowdown rather than brake.  I find it annoys the people

I'm certainly with you on the slowing down, though not so sure about 
engine braking - doesn't that make it spin more, thus (even at idle 
throttle settings) suck in more fuel?

>behind though.  They prefer you to drive up to faster speeds and then
>brake closer to the roundabout or whatever.
>
Tough. (Sorry.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Who's General Failure & why's he reading my disk? (Stolen from another .sig)

Bob E wrote:
> On 2 Jul, 20:46, Jo Lonergan  wrote:
> 
>> When really going for it on the motorway I've sometimes had the impression I
>> could see the fuel level indicator sinking before my eyes.
> 
> I have found that dropping in between lorries in "the slow lane" ,
> sitting there doing between 55 and 60 mph has really reduced my petrol
> consumption  and only increased my 35 min commute journey by 5 minutes
> at the most. Road noise is reduced and I have very few manouvers to
> concentrate on and, if I'm listening to Radio 4, it is time well
> spent.

Slipstreaming behind large vehicles does have a noticable impact on fuel 
consumption.

-- 
neil h
google brights

In message , Neil Hopkins 
 writes
[]
>Slipstreaming behind large vehicles does have a noticable impact on 
>fuel consumption.
>
Though I would imagine - at least to someone with the reactions that 
someone of my age has - the extra concentration required is probably too 
stressful to do it in a sustained manner.

Of course, there is an opportunity there for some company to make an 
automatic tailgating system (using radar, or ultrasonics, or even just 
light - visible, IR, or UV; however, they'll have to pay VERY big 
insurance premiums ...); it has certainly already been done on an 
experimental basis: so-called "road trains". Terrifying to watch, and 
that's only on TV!
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Who's General Failure & why's he reading my disk? (Stolen from another .sig)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in 
news:RCAtyYKpTVbIFwwS@soft255.demon.co.uk:

> In message , Neil Hopkins 
>  writes
> []
>>Slipstreaming behind large vehicles does have a noticable impact on 
>>fuel consumption.
>>
> Though I would imagine - at least to someone with the reactions that 
> someone of my age has - the extra concentration required is probably too 
> stressful to do it in a sustained manner.
> 
> Of course, there is an opportunity there for some company to make an 
> automatic tailgating system (using radar, or ultrasonics, or even just 
> light - visible, IR, or UV; however, they'll have to pay VERY big 
> insurance premiums ...); it has certainly already been done on an 
> experimental basis: so-called "road trains". Terrifying to watch, and 
> that's only on TV!

The simpler alternative of physically coupling the vehicles and using metal 
rails to guide them will come next. It could be called "railway trains".
-- 
Jim                             <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

On 3 Jul, 22:54, Neil Hopkins  wrote:
> Bob E wrote:

> > I have found that dropping in between lorries in "the slow lane" ,
> > sitting there doing between 55 and 60 mph

> Slipstreaming behind large vehicles does have a noticable impact on fuel
> consumption.

I certainly do not do that. I keep a long way back from the lorry in
front of me. I like to see where I am going.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message , Neil Hopkins 
>  writes
> []
>> Slipstreaming behind large vehicles does have a noticable impact on 
>> fuel consumption.
>>
> Though I would imagine - at least to someone with the reactions that 
> someone of my age has - the extra concentration required is probably too 
> stressful to do it in a sustained manner.

Need slipstreaming = tailgaiting? How close does one need to be to gain 
a benefit?
-- 
Kimbo xx

www.booksbykimbo.com

Neil Hopkins wrote:
> Bob E wrote:
>> On 2 Jul, 20:46, Jo Lonergan  wrote:
>>
>>> When really going for it on the motorway I've sometimes had the 
>>> impression I
>>> could see the fuel level indicator sinking before my eyes.
>>
>> I have found that dropping in between lorries in "the slow lane" ,
>> sitting there doing between 55 and 60 mph has really reduced my petrol
>> consumption  and only increased my 35 min commute journey by 5 minutes
>> at the most. Road noise is reduced and I have very few manouvers to
>> concentrate on and, if I'm listening to Radio 4, it is time well
>> spent.
> 
> Slipstreaming behind large vehicles does have a noticable impact on fuel 
> consumption.
> 
I'd have thought it was rather dangerous to drive close enough for it to 
have a significant effect...

On 3 Jul, 23:38, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" 
wrote:

> Of course, there is an opportunity there for some company to make an
> automatic tailgating system (using radar, or ultrasonics, or even just
> light - visible, IR, or UV; however, they'll have to pay VERY big
> insurance premiums ...); it has certainly already been done on an
> experimental basis: so-called "road trains". Terrifying to watch, and
> that's only on TV!

Funny you should say that.
I worked on such a scheme back in the early 1970s.
We concluded that simple radar was not reliable, but that an active co-
operative system using microwave links (twin RFs and different heights
above the road to overcome phase cancellation problems (Lloyds
mirror)) so each vehicle would know about all the other vehicles in
the vicinity might work.

It took quite a bit to convince me that we could get five computers in
each vehicle (for reliability purposes) - the smallest computer I knew
of was about the size of a desk, but it introduced me to probability
graph paper and the wonderful world of statistics.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:51:26 +0200, BrritSki 
wrote:

>Neil Hopkins wrote:
>> Bob E wrote:
>>> On 2 Jul, 20:46, Jo Lonergan  wrote:
>>>
>>>> When really going for it on the motorway I've sometimes had the 
>>>> impression I
>>>> could see the fuel level indicator sinking before my eyes.
>>>
>>> I have found that dropping in between lorries in "the slow lane" ,
>>> sitting there doing between 55 and 60 mph has really reduced my petrol
>>> consumption  and only increased my 35 min commute journey by 5 minutes
>>> at the most. Road noise is reduced and I have very few manouvers to
>>> concentrate on and, if I'm listening to Radio 4, it is time well
>>> spent.
>> 
>> Slipstreaming behind large vehicles does have a noticable impact on fuel 
>> consumption.
>> 
>I'd have thought it was rather dangerous to drive close enough for it to 
>have a significant effect...

I wouldn't dream of driving that close to a truck (not that I drive
nowadays anyway) but I used to slipstream big, slow vehicles when I
cycled the A127 - a daily commute for me at one time; I'd keep my work
clothes at work, arrive in my cycling garb then shower and change -
though on a bike it is both possible and essential to be tucked in at
the very edge at the back of the vehicle for full forward visibility
and the facility to peel off very rapidly when called for.

Sustained pedal-cycling at up to 40mph is all very exhilarating but my
knees don't 'alf give me some gyp these days.

Nick O
-- 
real e-mail is nickodell (at) bigfoot (dot) com

On Jul 4, 12:36 pm, Nick Odell
<gurzhfvp.jbexf...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:51:26 퍭, BrritSki 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Neil Hopkins wrote:
> >> Bob E wrote:
> >>> On 2 Jul, 20:46, Jo Lonergan  wrote:
>
> >>>> When really going for it on the motorway I've sometimes had the
> >>>> impression I
> >>>> could see the fuel level indicator sinking before my eyes.
>
> >>> I have found that dropping in between lorries in "the slow lane" ,
> >>> sitting there doing between 55 and 60 mph has really reduced my petrol
> >>> consumption  and only increased my 35 min commute journey by 5 minutes
> >>> at the most. Road noise is reduced and I have very few manouvers to
> >>> concentrate on and, if I'm listening to Radio 4, it is time well
> >>> spent.
>
> >> Slipstreaming behind large vehicles does have a noticable impact on fuel
> >> consumption.
>
> >I'd have thought it was rather dangerous to drive close enough for it to
> >have a significant effect...
>
> I wouldn't dream of driving that close to a truck (not that I drive
> nowadays anyway) but I used to slipstream big, slow vehicles when I
> cycled the A127 - a daily commute for me at one time; I'd keep my work
> clothes at work, arrive in my cycling garb then shower and change -
> though on a bike it is both possible and essential to be tucked in at
> the very edge at the back of the vehicle for full forward visibility
> and the facility to peel off very rapidly when called for.
>
> Sustained pedal-cycling at up to 40mph is all very exhilarating but my
> knees don't 'alf give me some gyp these days.

I used to do just the same thing with the buses between Moulsecoomb
and Falmer in my Brighton Uni nee Poly days. Ditto with the knees too
nowadays actually.

Kim Andrews wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message , Neil Hopkins 
>>  writes
>> []
>>> Slipstreaming behind large vehicles does have a noticable impact on 
>>> fuel consumption.
>>>
>> Though I would imagine - at least to someone with the reactions that 
>> someone of my age has - the extra concentration required is probably 
>> too stressful to do it in a sustained manner.
> 
> Need slipstreaming = tailgaiting? How close does one need to be to gain 
> a benefit?

For a large block shaped truck I would imagine that you can be a 
reasonable distance behind it and still benefit from being in the 
slipstream.

-- 
neil h
google brights

Neil Hopkins wrote:
> Kim Andrews wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message , Neil Hopkins 
>>>  writes
>>> []
>>>> Slipstreaming behind large vehicles does have a noticable impact on 
>>>> fuel consumption.
>>>>
>>> Though I would imagine - at least to someone with the reactions that 
>>> someone of my age has - the extra concentration required is probably 
>>> too stressful to do it in a sustained manner.
>>
>> Need slipstreaming = tailgaiting? How close does one need to be to 
>> gain a benefit?
> 
> For a large block shaped truck I would imagine that you can be a 
> reasonable distance behind it and still benefit from being in the 
> slipstream.
> 
I doubt that very much - you've only got to think about the shape of the 
spray thrown up by a lorry on very wet roads - it's extremely turbulent 
within less than a truck length. Now I know that's where you get the 
"tow", but it is not a very big area imo, probably another truck length, 
not where I'd want to be even in dry conditions.

Not that I've ever tried it, I have certainly been known to tailgate, 
but never behind something solid - I have only ever done it where I can 
see through (not round) the vehicle and can react to the road situations 
at the same time (or often before) the driver in front of me.

In article , badriya
 wrote:
> When we had the 3 day week and petrol shortage I don't think we got as
> far as rationing.

Not quite - but petrol coupons /were/ issued, IIRC. I think I still had mine
until quite recently, just in case... 


>I find it annoys the people behind though.  They prefer you to drive up to
> faster speeds and then brake closer to the roundabout or whatever.

I think the real problem with slowing down without braking is that the
driver behind doesn't get the visual clue of the brake lights going on. If
we all did it, we would eventually get the idea that the car in front is
likely to slow down without warning us, and drive appropriately. While only
a few people do it, it is disconcerting.

Perhaps cars should show the brake lights when the car slows down, not just
when the brakes are applied.

Rosemary







-- 
Rosemary Miskin     ZFC Pm   miskin@orpheusmail.co.uk
Loughborough, UK             http://miskin.orpheusweb.co.uk

In message , Jim 
Easterbrook  writes
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in
>news:RCAtyYKpTVbIFwwS@soft255.demon.co.uk:
>
>> In message , Neil Hopkins
>>  writes
>> []
>>>Slipstreaming behind large vehicles does have a noticable impact on
>>>fuel consumption.
>>>
>> Though I would imagine - at least to someone with the reactions that
>> someone of my age has - the extra concentration required is probably too
>> stressful to do it in a sustained manner.
>>
>> Of course, there is an opportunity there for some company to make an
>> automatic tailgating system (using radar, or ultrasonics, or even just
>> light - visible, IR, or UV; however, they'll have to pay VERY big
>> insurance premiums ...); it has certainly already been done on an
>> experimental basis: so-called "road trains". Terrifying to watch, and
>> that's only on TV!
>
>The simpler alternative of physically coupling the vehicles and using metal
>rails to guide them will come next. It could be called "railway trains".

Ah! Now that's an idea, we could have a network that covered the whole 
country - with North - South and East - West routes that intersected; we 
would be able to travel anywhere with just one ticket and visit almost 
any town or city as they would all have things we might call stations. 
These stations could sell tickets and give out travel information - they 
could even have waiting rooms for those times when you might have to 
wait for the next train going where you wished to go. Another idea is 
that they call sell wholesome food - they might even have eating rooms 
or cars on the trains!

Sounds too good to be true to me - someone would come along and axe many 
of the little village stations and then 'cos people didn't go there any 
more, they'd probably close the lines. Never mind, we could nationalise 
the whole lot so the general public paid to keep the lines open and the 
services could continue to run. Trouble is, big business would want to 
make profits out of everything I think. So the nationalised service 
could be privatised and some people could start making profit for 
themselves by not running any service they couldn't be @rsed to run as a 
service to the users, so they would in turn start using cars to go 
everywhere. Lots of people would have shares in the railway business 
because the general public had given a lot of many in the earlier days 
just to keep the services running. Now, these people with shares would 
ask the government to invest in the railways so that they could make a 
real go of it - so the money would be given to them - at this point the 
Fat Cats would recognise what a good job they were doing and award 
themselves huge bonuses and the infrastructure would then not have the 
money to invest in the railways ....

OH! No!, don't worry, that couldn't happen here .... could it?
-- 
Mike McMillan,
The email address is spam trapped but any genuine communications may be sent to
mike dot mcmillan at ntlworld dot com

"Let's all calm down shall we? Let's forget there is a llama in here at all."
(Lynda Snell, 010603)

Tel: (+44) 0118 9265450. website: <http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.mcmillan/>

BrritSki wrote:

>I doubt that very much - you've only got to think about the shape of the 
>spray thrown up by a lorry on very wet roads - it's extremely turbulent 
>within less than a truck length. Now I know that's where you get the 
>"tow", but it is not a very big area imo, probably another truck length, 
>not where I'd want to be even in dry conditions.
>
When caravanning, the worst vehicle to follow is a loaded car
transporter - the turbulence, even at a safe distance, is
amazing.  Overtaking, if appropriate, has to be done from well
back and swiftly.

Chris
-- 
Chris J Dixon  Nottingham    
'48/59/31 M B+ G+ A L(-) I S-- CH-(--) Ar++ T+ H0 ?Q Sh+
chris@cdixon.me.uk
Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On 3 Jul, 23:55, Rosemary Miskin  wrote:
> In article , badriya
>  wrote:

> >I find it annoys the people behind though.  They prefer you to drive up to
> > faster speeds and then brake closer to the roundabout or whatever.
>
> I think the real problem with slowing down without braking is that the
> driver behind doesn't get the visual clue of the brake lights going on.

My driving instructor encouraged me to look ahead and use the engine
in preferance to brakes, but insisted that I give a "touch on the
brakes" to let those behind know I was slowing down.

In message , Rosemary 
Miskin  writes
>In article , badriya
> wrote:
>> When we had the 3 day week and petrol shortage I don't think we got as
>> far as rationing.
>
>Not quite - but petrol coupons /were/ issued, IIRC. I think I still had mine
>until quite recently, just in case...
>
There was some suggestion that they were the same format as the wartime 
(or post-?) ones, so people who had kept those ...
>
>>I find it annoys the people behind though.  They prefer you to drive up to
>> faster speeds and then brake closer to the roundabout or whatever.
>
>I think the real problem with slowing down without braking is that the
>driver behind doesn't get the visual clue of the brake lights going on. If
>we all did it, we would eventually get the idea that the car in front is
>likely to slow down without warning us, and drive appropriately. While only
>a few people do it, it is disconcerting.
>
>Perhaps cars should show the brake lights when the car slows down, not just
>when the brakes are applied.
[]
With Bob E., I _think_ my instructor told me to just press the pedal 
enough for the lights to come on; I think I sometimes do, anyway. I 
think Rosemary's idea has some merit - maybe with a different indication 
(not so bright, or only some of the lights) - in fact some sort of _how_ 
much a vehicle is decelerating would IMO be _most_ useful anyway. 
(Perhaps different colours over certain thresholds?)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"Mummy, Mummy, I'm 13 now can I wear a bra?"

"SHUT UP RALPH...."

In message , Jim 
Easterbrook  writes
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in
>news:RCAtyYKpTVbIFwwS@soft255.demon.co.uk:
[]
>> experimental basis: so-called "road trains". Terrifying to watch, and
>> that's only on TV!
>
>The simpler alternative of physically coupling the vehicles and using metal
>rails to guide them will come next. It could be called "railway trains".

Though I pick up on your irony, I have two things to say:

1. the physical coupling (without the rails!) could well be worth 
looking into; I have noticed that the breakdown industry these days 
tends to use some sort of coupling, rather than the old-fashioned (and 
somewhat terrifying) rope, on the occasions when they don't actually 
pick up the disabled vehicle altogether.

2. I have long said I am sad that motorail has (AFAIK) disappeared, and 
was always excessively complicated and expensive when it was working: 
There are quite a lot of times when I'd like to have the versatility of 
my car when I got to somewhere, but would gladly pay (a _reasonable_ 
fee) not to have to drive it the long distance to get there. (The 
rental-when-get-there doesn't appeal - [a] I can't carry lots on the 
train getting there, [b] rental costs even when you're not using it. [I 
know a car does too, but if I already have that ...]) Plus, I _think_ it 
would be more energy-efficient, and certainly reduce traffic levels.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"Mummy, Mummy, I'm 13 now can I wear a bra?"

"SHUT UP RALPH...."

Rosemary Miskin wrote:
> In article , badriya
>  wrote:
>> When we had the 3 day week and petrol shortage I don't think we got
>> as far as rationing.
>
> Not quite - but petrol coupons /were/ issued, IIRC. I think I still
> had mine until quite recently, just in case...
>
>
>> I find it annoys the people behind though.  They prefer you to drive
>> up to faster speeds and then brake closer to the roundabout or
>> whatever.
>
> I think the real problem with slowing down without braking is that the
> driver behind doesn't get the visual clue of the brake lights going
> on. If we all did it, we would eventually get the idea that the car
> in front is likely to slow down without warning us, and drive
> appropriately. While only a few people do it, it is disconcerting.
>
> Perhaps cars should show the brake lights when the car slows down,
> not just when the brakes are applied.
>
> Rosemary

When driving along normally, I would guess that people don't keep to exactly 
the same speed for very long at a time, there must be many insignificant 
increases and decreases in speed. If your brake lights came on in response 
to such decelerations they would be flashing on and off much of the time 
that you were driving. If that were so, the driver behind would take longer 
to react when you really were stopping suddenly.

To avoid this, I think the deceleration would have to be fairly significant 
to trigger the lights.


-- 

CaroleT

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> 
> 2. I have long said I am sad that motorail has (AFAIK) disappeared, and 
> was always excessively complicated and expensive when it was working: 
> There are quite a lot of times when I'd like to have the versatility of 
> my car when I got to somewhere, but would gladly pay (a _reasonable_ 
> fee) not to have to drive it the long distance to get there. (The 
> rental-when-get-there doesn't appeal - [a] I can't carry lots on the 
> train getting there, [b] rental costs even when you're not using it. [I 
> know a car does too, but if I already have that ...]) Plus, I _think_ it 
> would be more energy-efficient, and certainly reduce traffic levels.

We used motorrail for family holidays when I was small.  Absolutely 
brilliant: get on the train a few miles from home in the early evening, 
have the excitement of a sleeper car, and make up the next morning 
hurtling along the south coast.   Wigan to Cornwall would have been 
pretty painful for my parents with two under 10s.

In article , Nick
 wrote:
>  Wigan to Cornwall would have been 
> pretty painful for my parents with two under 10s.
> 

We did York to Inverness several times. Driving all the way there and back
would have used up most of the holiday: and breakfast at the Station Hotel
in Inverness was a brilliant start to a Scottish holiday.

Rosemary


-- 
Rosemary Miskin     ZFC Pm   miskin@orpheusmail.co.uk
Loughborough, UK             http://miskin.orpheusweb.co.uk

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:15:30 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
 wrote:

>2. I have long said I am sad that motorail has (AFAIK) disappeared, and 
>was always excessively complicated and expensive when it was working: 
>There are quite a lot of times when I'd like to have the versatility of 
>my car when I got to somewhere, but would gladly pay (a _reasonable_ 
>fee) not to have to drive it the long distance to get there. (The 
>rental-when-get-there doesn't appeal - [a] I can't carry lots on the 
>train getting there, [b] rental costs even when you're not using it. [I 
>know a car does too, but if I already have that ...]) Plus, I _think_ it 
>would be more energy-efficient, and certainly reduce traffic levels.

It still exists on the continent, e.g. from Hamburg to Southern
France, Italy or Croatia. It's probably quite expensive for one
person, but for a family, especially with young children, it must beat
driving for hours on end or having to cope with all that luggage on a
flight.

-- 
Jo

Jo Lonergan  writes:

> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:15:30 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>  wrote:
> 
> >2. I have long said I am sad that motorail has (AFAIK) disappeared, and 
> >was always excessively complicated and expensive when it was working: 
> >There are quite a lot of times when I'd like to have the versatility of 
> >my car when I got to somewhere, but would gladly pay (a _reasonable_ 
> >fee) not to have to drive it the long distance to get there. (The 
> >rental-when-get-there doesn't appeal - [a] I can't carry lots on the 
> >train getting there, [b] rental costs even when you're not using it. [I 
> >know a car does too, but if I already have that ...]) Plus, I _think_ it 
> >would be more energy-efficient, and certainly reduce traffic levels.
> 
> It still exists on the continent, e.g. from Hamburg to Southern
> France, Italy or Croatia. It's probably quite expensive for one
> person, but for a family, especially with young children, it must beat
> driving for hours on end or having to cope with all that luggage on a
> flight.
> 
Also, Belgrade to Bar.  I nearly got run down by somone driving too
fast through the station to get their car on the train.

73, doug

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:25:06 +0100, Jo Lonergan
 wrote:

>On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:15:30 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
>
>>2. I have long said I am sad that motorail has (AFAIK) disappeared, and 
>>was always excessively complicated and expensive when it was working: 
>>There are quite a lot of times when I'd like to have the versatility of 
>>my car when I got to somewhere, but would gladly pay (a _reasonable_ 
>>fee) not to have to drive it the long distance to get there. (The 
>>rental-when-get-there doesn't appeal - [a] I can't carry lots on the 
>>train getting there, [b] rental costs even when you're not using it. [I 
>>know a car does too, but if I already have that ...]) Plus, I _think_ it 
>>would be more energy-efficient, and certainly reduce traffic levels.
>
>It still exists on the continent, e.g. from Hamburg to Southern
>France, Italy or Croatia. It's probably quite expensive for one
>person, but for a family, especially with young children, it must beat
>driving for hours on end or having to cope with all that luggage on a
>flight.

Even more luggage on some flights....

http://tinyurl.com/5otlg3


Nick O
-- 
real e-mail is nickodell (at) bigfoot (dot) com

In article , 
gurzhfvp.jbexfubc@ntlworld.com.invalid says...

> 
> Even more luggage on some flights....
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/5otlg3
> 
Swerve..

I can't access that link because ZoneAlarm has now treats tinyurl.com as 
a spy site & blocks access to it.

Amusingly, when I googled on 'Zonealarm + tinyurl' I found lots of hits 
where people were recommending that Zonealarm be installed & giving a 
tinyurl link to its download page.

-- 
Sam

* Plusnet wrote, On 07/07/2008 23:53:
> In article , 
> gurzhfvp.jbexfubc@ntlworld.com.invalid says...
> 
>> Even more luggage on some flights....
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5otlg3
>>
> Swerve..
> 
> I can't access that link because ZoneAlarm has now treats tinyurl.com as 
> a spy site & blocks access to it.

It's very easy to tell ZoneAlarm to allow tinyurl though.  There's an 
option on the warning message ZA gives you, which allows you to create 
an exception for the site.  I forget exactly how it's worded but I can 
now access tinyurl sites without difficulty, despite using ZA.


-- 
Cheers, Serena

The way I see it, if you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the 
rain (Dolly Parton)

In article , 
nospam@blanchflower.me.uk says...
> * Plusnet wrote, On 07/07/2008 23:53:
> > In article , 
> > gurzhfvp.jbexfubc@ntlworld.com.invalid says...
> > 
> >> Even more luggage on some flights....
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/5otlg3
> >>
> > Swerve..
> > 
> > I can't access that link because ZoneAlarm has now treats tinyurl.com as 
> > a spy site & blocks access to it.
> 
> It's very easy to tell ZoneAlarm to allow tinyurl though.  There's an 
> option on the warning message ZA gives you, which allows you to create 
> an exception for the site.  I forget exactly how it's worded but I can 
> now access tinyurl sites without difficulty, despite using ZA.
> 
I'd tried, several times, to create an exception for tinyurl, but 
zonealarm wasn't having any.

I just tried again & succeeded.  Don't ask me what I did that was 
different to last time.

-- 
Sam

* Plusnet wrote, On 08/07/2008 20:05:
> In article , 
> nospam@blanchflower.me.uk says...
>> * Plusnet wrote, On 07/07/2008 23:53:
>>> In article , 
>>> gurzhfvp.jbexfubc@ntlworld.com.invalid says...
>>>
>>>> Even more luggage on some flights....
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5otlg3
>>>>
>>> Swerve..
>>>
>>> I can't access that link because ZoneAlarm has now treats tinyurl.com as 
>>> a spy site & blocks access to it.
>> It's very easy to tell ZoneAlarm to allow tinyurl though.  There's an 
>> option on the warning message ZA gives you, which allows you to create 
>> an exception for the site.  I forget exactly how it's worded but I can 
>> now access tinyurl sites without difficulty, despite using ZA.
>>
> I'd tried, several times, to create an exception for tinyurl, but 
> zonealarm wasn't having any.
> 
> I just tried again & succeeded.  Don't ask me what I did that was 
> different to last time.
> 

<g>  I won't, as I can't remember what I did to set mine up either :)

-- 
Cheers, Serena

The cure for boredom is curiosity.  There is no cure for curiosity 
(Dorothy Parker)

In message , Nick 
 writes
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>  2. I have long said I am sad that motorail has (AFAIK) disappeared,
[]
>We used motorrail for family holidays when I was small.  Absolutely 
>brilliant: get on the train a few miles from home in the early evening, 
>have the excitement of a sleeper car, and make up the next morning 
>hurtling along the south coast.   Wigan to Cornwall would have been 
>pretty painful for my parents with two under 10s.

Ah. I was thinking more of something like the shuttle train - i. e. you 
stay in your car, maybe with the opportunity to walk and maybe loos and 
vending machines. I would imagine sleeper-cars etc. _would_ add 
significantly to the price, and not be practical on shorter journeys.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

In message , Plusnet 
 writes
>In article ,
>gurzhfvp.jbexfubc@ntlworld.com.invalid says...
>
>>
>> Even more luggage on some flights....
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5otlg3
>>
>Swerve..
>
>I can't access that link because ZoneAlarm has now treats tinyurl.com as
>a spy site & blocks access to it.
[]
I couldn't read it because the "Loopylove" advert. down the side of the 
article spread out and obscured some of the text.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 01:03:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
 wrote:

>In message , Nick 
> writes
>>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>  2. I have long said I am sad that motorail has (AFAIK) disappeared,
>[]
>>We used motorrail for family holidays when I was small.  Absolutely 
>>brilliant: get on the train a few miles from home in the early evening, 
>>have the excitement of a sleeper car, and make up the next morning 
>>hurtling along the south coast.   Wigan to Cornwall would have been 
>>pretty painful for my parents with two under 10s.
>
>Ah. I was thinking more of something like the shuttle train - i. e. you 
>stay in your car, maybe with the opportunity to walk and maybe loos and 
>vending machines. I would imagine sleeper-cars etc. _would_ add 
>significantly to the price, and not be practical on shorter journeys.

There are still shuttles like that (the Chunnel for one). Apart from
the Chunnel, the ones I've used don't provide any facilities, or allow
you to get out of the car. So they're only suitable for quite short
journeys, e.g. through mountains.

-- 
Jo

In message , Jo Lonergan 
 writes
[]
>>>We used motorrail for family holidays when I was small.  Absolutely
[]
>>Ah. I was thinking more of something like the shuttle train - i. e. you
>>stay in your car, maybe with the opportunity to walk and maybe loos and
>>vending machines. I would imagine sleeper-cars etc. _would_ add
>>significantly to the price, and not be practical on shorter journeys.
>
>There are still shuttles like that (the Chunnel for one). Apart from

When I said "the shuttle train", it was the Chunnel one I had in mind.

>the Chunnel, the ones I've used don't provide any facilities, or allow
>you to get out of the car. So they're only suitable for quite short
>journeys, e.g. through mountains.
>
The Chunnel-type one could be expanded (i. e. used elsewhere), though.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

No matter how beautiful a girl is, no matter how much you might love her,
squeeze her tight enough and she'll fart - Joe Barron, quoted by son Fred ("My
Family" creator), RT, 15-21 March 2003

"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in 
news:eyzuOcL+NVdIFwDo@soft255.demon.co.uk:

> The Chunnel-type one could be expanded (i. e. used elsewhere), though.

Only at the expense of rebuilding a lot of bridges and tunnels, then 
increasing the distance between tracks on lines with more than one track. 
The shuttle trains are much fatter and taller than normal loading gauge 
would permit. Just compare the size of the locos with what they're towing.

PS Are all the shuttle locos named after female opera singers? Every one 
we've noticed has been.
-- 
Jim                             <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

In message , Jim 
Easterbrook  writes
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in
>news:eyzuOcL+NVdIFwDo@soft255.demon.co.uk:
>
>> The Chunnel-type one could be expanded (i. e. used elsewhere), though.
>
>Only at the expense of rebuilding a lot of bridges and tunnels, then
>increasing the distance between tracks on lines with more than one track.
>The shuttle trains are much fatter and taller than normal loading gauge
>would permit. Just compare the size of the locos with what they're towing.

Yes, but I don't think they _have_ to be; that was done because they 
more or less had a blank canvas to work with, so optimised it for what 
they were doing.
[]
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Stability in language is synonymous with rigor mortis. -Ernest Weekley,
lexicographer (1865-1954)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in
news:Y7U$8RLhIsdIFwyv@soft255.demon.co.uk: 

> In message , Jim 
> Easterbrook  writes
>>"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in
>>news:eyzuOcL+NVdIFwDo@soft255.demon.co.uk:
>>
>>> The Chunnel-type one could be expanded (i. e. used elsewhere),
>>> though. 
>>
>>Only at the expense of rebuilding a lot of bridges and tunnels, then
>>increasing the distance between tracks on lines with more than one
>>track. The shuttle trains are much fatter and taller than normal
>>loading gauge would permit. Just compare the size of the locos with
>>what they're towing. 
> 
> Yes, but I don't think they _have_ to be; that was done because they 
> more or less had a blank canvas to work with, so optimised it for what
> they were doing.

They do need to be a lot wider than a car if people are going to sit in 
their cars for the journey, given the need to get out and go to the loo 
or whatever. To fit in normal loading gauge you end up with the motorail 
system of a normal train for the people with some trucks attached for the 
unoccupied cars.
-- 
Jim                             <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

In message , Jim 
Easterbrook  writes
[]
>> Yes, but I don't think they _have_ to be; that was done because they
>> more or less had a blank canvas to work with, so optimised it for what
>> they were doing.
>
>They do need to be a lot wider than a car if people are going to sit in
>their cars for the journey, given the need to get out and go to the loo
>or whatever. To fit in normal loading gauge you end up with the motorail
>system of a normal train for the people with some trucks attached for the
>unoccupied cars.

Ah, I'd assumed you meant the double-decker arrangement when you said 
the chunnel ones were bigger. Is the normal train width, then, _not_ 
wide enough to get cars in and allow door opening? Thinking about it, 
and particularly with the ridiculous size that many modern cars are 
tending towards, I suspect you're right.

But I still think there is _some_ room for it - either as you say with 
conventional carriages for the people, or just the 
people-stay-in-their-cars approach for shorter journeys.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Often at work I wish they'd pay me what I'm worth, but sometimes I'm glad they
don't. (BrritSki, in uk.media.radio.archers, on 2000-12-25.)

Nick Odell <gurzhfvp.jbexfubc@ntlworld.com.invalid> writes:
>Even more luggage on some flights....
>
>http://tinyurl.com/5otlg3

anyone disabled, who expects help from ryanair, is just plain hiding
their head in the sand.  ryanair seems to demand the right to
discriminate, on the basis that they're offering a rock-bottom (bl**dy
awful) service -- one remembers the court case against them for
failing to provide a wheelchar so that someone could get to their
flight.

ryanair's nasty-piece-of-work boss said he would charge everyone the
cost of providing a wheelchair, if he lost.  i don't recall whether he
did; i stopped paying attention since my attitude to the airline had
finally been solidified by my last flight with them from
"barcelona"[*] to stansted.  cramped seating left arthritic legs
unable to get me from the plane to the terminal in under 35 minutes.

never again: even if i do eventually take to the skies again, it won't
be with them.

[*] i.e., a town in the same region of spain as barcelona
-- 
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge

Bob E wrote:
> On 3 Jul, 23:55, Rosemary Miskin  wrote:
>> In article , badriya
>>  wrote:
> 
>>> I find it annoys the people behind though.  They prefer you to drive up to
>>> faster speeds and then brake closer to the roundabout or whatever.
>> I think the real problem with slowing down without braking is that the
>> driver behind doesn't get the visual clue of the brake lights going on.
> 
> My driving instructor encouraged me to look ahead and use the engine
> in preferance to brakes, but insisted that I give a "touch on the
> brakes" to let those behind know I was slowing down.

A guy I knew used to give a quick flick of his rear lights if someone 
was driving too close behind him. This gave them the impression that he 
was braking without him having to slow down.

-- 
Marjorie